tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 05 14:51:37 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: The word {quq} (?)

THIS IS NOT A CORRECTION. IT IS ONLY A COUPLE SUGGESTED THOUGHTS.

     On the topic of sentences as subjects, I suggest that the problem is
usually related to the use of infinitives (requiring rewording ANYWAY,
because Klingon doesn't have them) and Klingon verbs intended to avoid the
English verb TO BE. In the English example "It was difficult for me to kill
the captain," the interesting verb here is "was". You want "I killed the
captain" to be the SUBJECT of "was difficult". The thing is, in English, "to
be" is refexive. "I am Will," is the same thing as "Will am I." While we
rarely say it that way, it would be technically correct to say, "Difficult
was it to kill the captain." So why can't we use 'e' and make "I kill the
captain" the OBJECT of the verb? I know it is a weird idea, but frankly, I
can easily understand:

HoD vIHoHta' 'e' Qatlhqu'pu'.

     To me, this says, "It was very difficult that I successfully killed the
captain," in much the way that "Qatlhqu'pu' 'e' vIQub" means, "I think that
it was very difficult."

     As for quq, my immediate tempation is to say something like:

vIbaHta' 'ej mubaHta' 'e' quqbejpu'

     Again, I'd see this as, "They obviously happened simultaneously that I
shot him and he shot me." Maybe you'd be happier with:

vIbaHta' 'ej mubaHta' 'e' quqbejpu' wanI'meyvam

     "These events clearly happened at the same time that I shot him and he
shot me." I like it less, since it is redundant and noun-centric. Still, it
does spell out the grammar and meaning a little more explicitly.

     Is this really bad form? While there are no specific cannonical examples
I know of to point to, I don't think I'm just making stuff up here. It feels
like a natural extention of the existing grammar; even less. It feels like it
follows all the rules, inventing nothing.

--   charghwI'

Back to archive top level